DOCSLIB.ORG

National Prescription ) Case No. 1:17 Md 2804 Op

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Prescription ) Case No. 1:17 Md 2804 Op Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 2565 Filed: 09/03/19 1 of 23. PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION ) CASE NO. 1:17 MD 2804 OPIATE LITIGATION ) ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Track One Cases ) RE: PREEMPTION ) Four sets of defendants, some overlapping, have filed separate motions for summary judgment on the issue of federal preemption of state law claims and federal preclusion of federal claims. The moving defendants are identified as follows: Non-RICO Small Distributors1 (Doc #: 1873), several Pharmacies and Distributors2 (Doc #: 1883), Manufacturers3 (Doc #: 1926), and 1 The motion identifies the “Small Distributors” as H.D. Smith, LLC, Anda, Inc.; Henry Schein, Inc.; and Prescription Supply, Inc. (Doc #: 1873 at 1.) The Court subsequently severed all but Defendant Henry Schein, Inc. (Doc #: 2399.) 2 “Pharmacy Defendants” are CVS Rx Services, Inc. and CVS Indiana, L.L.C. (“CVS Distributors”); Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., d/b/a Mid-Atlantic Customer Support Center (“Rite Aid”); Walgreen Co. and Walgreen Eastern Co. (“Walgreens”); HBC Service Company, an unincorporated operating division of Giant Eagle, Inc. (“Giant Eagle”); Discount Drug Mart (“DDM”); and Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”). “Distributor Defendants” who join in this motion are AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation. (Doc #: 1883-3 at 1 n.1.) 3 Specifically, the motion identifies “Manufacturers” as “Purdue Pharma, L.P., Purdue Pharma, Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. …, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho- McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Noramco, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, Cephalon, Inc., Allergan plc f/k/a Actavis plc, Allergan Finance, LLC, f/k/a Actavis, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 2565 Filed: 09/03/19 2 of 23. PageID #: <pageID> Generic Manufacturers4 (Doc #: 1860). Plaintiffs filed a single opposition brief addressing Generic Manufacturers’ motion (Doc #: 2251), and a consolidated memorandum of opposition addressing the other three motions (Doc #: 2171). The moving Defendants then filed reply briefs. (Doc ##: 2447 (Generic Manufacturers), 2455 (Manufacturers), 2465 (Non-RICO Small Distributors), 2467 (Pharmacies and Distributors)). This Opinion and Order addresses all four motions. I. The allegations underlying the Track One complaints,5 as well as in much of this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), have been accurately set forth by Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz in the Summit County R & R (Doc #: 1025 at 3-11), the Muscogee Nation R & R (Doc #: 1499 at 8-14), and the Blackfeet Tribes R & R (Doc #: 1500 at 4-6). Most preemption issues raised in the four pending motions have already been raised, addressed, and ruled on as a matter of law in the three R & Rs, LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc, Mallinckrodt, plc, Mallinckrodt LLC, SpecGx LLC, Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC, Actavis Totowa LLC, Actavis Kadian LLC, Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Salt Lake City, and Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida.” (Doc #: 1926 at 1.) 4 The motion identifies the “Generic Manufacturers” as “Actavis Pharma, Actavis LLC, Watson, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC, Actavis Totowa LLC, Actavis Kadian LLC, Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Salt Lake City, and Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida (collectively, the ‘Actavis Generic Defendants’); Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Endo Health Solutions Inc. (collectively, “Endo Defendants”); Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (… collectively, “Par Defendants”); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (‘Teva USA’), Inc.; and the generics business of Mallinckrodt LLC and SpecGx LLC (together, “Mallinckrodt”). (Doc #: 1860.) There is significant overlap between “Manufacturers” and “Generic Manufacturers,” as the latter are included in the former but not vice versa. 5 The reference to Track One cases are to County of Summit, Ohio, et al. v. Purdue Pharma LP, et al., Case No. 1:18-op-45090 and County of Cuyahoga, Ohio v. Purdue Pharma LP, et al, Case No. 1:17-op-4500, both of which will be tried together in October 2019. -2- Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 2565 Filed: 09/03/19 3 of 23. PageID #: <pageID> as set forth in greater detail below. Since no party filed objections challenging Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s recommended rulings on the subject of preemption (Doc #: 1203 at 2; Doc #: 1680 at 28), they became rulings of the Court and the law of the MDL. A. Summit County R & R (Doc #: 1025). In Summit County, Manufacturer Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ state law claims, arguing they were preempted because they conflicted with decisions of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding approval and labeling of prescription opiates. Without repeating in great detail Manufacturers’ arguments, they generally contended that: (1) state law claims involving the marketing of opioids were preempted when a claim would require a drug manufacturer to make statements about safety or efficacy in marketing materials that differed from what the FDA required; (2) state law claims involving off-label use were preempted because the FDA was invested with exclusive authority and a variety enforcement options existed to address off-label promotion; and (3) the diversion-monitoring theory advanced by Plaintiffs was preempted because state law would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the FDA’s objectives.6 In other words, Manufacturers argued that each of Plaintiffs’ claims would undermine the FDA’s decision to make prescription opioids available to the public and would also force Manufacturers to stop selling those drugs over concerns about liability. The Court declined to read Plaintiffs’ allegations so narrowly. The Court found that the state law claims were “not premised upon inappropriate labeling or a fraud on the FDA, but rather 6 As Defendants did not raise express preemption or field preemption, their defenses were based solely on conflict preemption, which occurs when either: (1) compliance with both federal and state laws is a physical impossibility, or (2) state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Yates v. Ortho-MdNail-Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 808 F.3d 281, 293-94 (6th Cir. 2015). -3- Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 2565 Filed: 09/03/19 4 of 23. PageID #: <pageID> fraudulent marketing in the promotion and sale of their opioids” (Summit R & R at 50); Plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), but their allegations were “of the type that would traditionally be brought as state law claims [prior to the enactment of the FDCA]” (id. at 52);7 and the argument that state law imposed a duty to monitor the sale of opioids with due care was not inherently “inconsistent with the purposes of the FDCA, and thus not preempted” (id. at 54).8 B. Muscogee Nation R & R (Doc #: 1499). 1. Manufacturers. In Muscogee Nation, Manufacturers asserted a new basis for preemption not briefed in the Summit County motion to dismiss.9 Manufacturers argued that Plaintiffs’ state law claims were preempted because it would be impossible for them to comply with federal law requirements and state law judgments arising from those claims. In support, Manufacturers narrowly construed Plaintiffs’ claims as seeking label changes and cited the FDA’s July 2012 response to a citizen petition from Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (the “PROP” Petition), which rejected PROP’s proposed label changes, as “clear evidence” the FDA would not have approved Plaintiffs’ purported label changes.10 7 In support, the Court cited Loreto v. Procter & Gamble Co., 515 Fed. App’x 576, 579 (6th Cir. 2013). 8 Here, the Court cited Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (rejecting a similar argument, noting that “with limited resources to monitor the 11,000 drugs on the market, the FDA appears to view state tort law as a ‘complementary’ form of drug regulation”). Id. at 574-75. 9 The Court need not discuss preemption arguments previously raised and decided. 10 “A failure to warn claim is preempted where the manufacturer of the drug proves that it was impossible to comply with state and federal law by submitting ‘clear evidence that the FDA would not have approved a change’ to the drug’s label.” Rheinfrank v. Abbott Lab., Inc., 119 -4- Case: 1:17-md-02804 Doc #: 2565 Filed: 09/03/19 5 of 23. PageID #: <pageID> The Court agreed with Manufacturers that representations made in their marketing materials must be consistent with specific pre-approved labels submitted to the FDA; state law claims seeking to impose liability on Manufacturers for failing to include statements on their marketing materials regarding the correct dosage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recommendations for the Primary Analysis of Continuous Endpoints in Longitudinal Clinical Trials
    02-DIJ42(4) 2348.qxd 6/9/08 1:46 PM Page 303 STATISTICS 303 Recommendations for the Primary Analysis of Continuous Endpoints in Longitudinal Clinical Trials Craig H. Mallinckrodt, PhD Research Advisor, Lilly This position paper summarizes relevant theo- simple methods in favor of joint analysis of Research Laboratories, Eli ry and current practice regarding the analysis data from all time points based on a multivari- Lilly and Company, of longitudinal clinical trials intended to sup- ate model (eg, of a mixed-effects type). One Indianapolis, Indiana port regulatory approval of medicinal prod- such newer method, a likelihood-based mixed- Peter W. Lane, MA, CStat ucts, and it reviews published research regard- effects model repeated measures (MMRM) ap- Director of Consultancy and Training, Research Statistics ing methods for handling missing data. It is proach, has received considerable attention in Unit, GlaxoSmithKline, one strand of the PhRMA initiative to improve the clinical trials literature. We discuss specif- Harlow, United Kingdom efficiency of late-stage clinical research and ic concerns raised by regulatory agencies with Dan Schnell, PhD gives recommendations from a cross-industry regard to MMRM and review published evi- Section Head, Pharmaceutical Statistics, team. We concentrate specifically on continu- dence comparing LOCF and MMRM in terms Procter & Gamble ous response measures analyzed using a linear of validity, bias, power, and type I error. Our Pharmaceuticals, model, when the goal is to estimate and test main conclusion is that the mixed model ap- Mason, Ohio treatment differences at a given time point. proach is more efficient and reliable as a Yahong Peng, PhD Traditionally, the primary analysis of such tri- method of primary analysis, and should be Senior Biometrician, Clinical Biostatistics, Merck als handled missing data by simple imputation preferred to the inherently biased and statisti- Research Lab, Upper using the last, or baseline, observation carried cally invalid simple imputation approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. V. Actavis
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MALLINCKRODT LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ACTAVIS LLC, FKA ACTAVIS INC., ACTAVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC LLC, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2018-1054 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-01381-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews. ______________________ Decided: May 3, 2019 ______________________ MARTIN JAY BLACK, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, ar- gued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by SHARON K. GAGLIARDI; BLAKE GREENE, Austin, TX; JONATHAN LOEB, Mountain View, CA; ROBERT RHOAD, Princeton, NJ. JEFFREY J. TONEY, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Fried- man LLP, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee Mallinckrodt LLC. Also represented by RODNEY R. MILLER, PAUL GUNTER WILLIAMS. 2 ENDO PHARM. INC. v. ACTAVIS LLC JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by WILLIAM H. BURGESS; CHARLES A. WEISS, ERIC H. YECIES, Holland & Knight, LLP, New York, NY. ______________________ Before WALLACH, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge STOLL. WALLACH, Circuit Judge. Appellees Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo Pharma- ceuticals”) and Mallinckrodt LLC (“Mallinckrodt”) (collec- tively, “Endo”) sued Appellants Actavis LLC, Actavis South Atlantic LLC, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collec- tively, “Actavis”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“District Court”), alleging that two Abbrevi- ated New Drug Applications filed by Actavis infringed claims 1–6 (“the Asserted Claims”) of Mallinckrodt’s U.S. Patent No. 8,871,779 (“the ’779 patent”), which Endo Phar- maceuticals licenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Amgen Inc. V. Sanofi, No
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— AMGEN INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING LIMITED, AND AMGEN USA, INC., Petitioners, v. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC, REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC., AND SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— STUART L. WATT JEFFREY A. LAMKEN WENDY A. WHITEFORD Counsel of Record ERICA S. OLSON MICHAEL G. PATTILLO, JR. EMILY C. JOHNSON SARAH J. NEWMAN AMGEN INC. MOLOLAMKEN LLP One Amgen Center Drive The Watergate, Suite 660 Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW (805) 447-1000 Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners :,/621(3(635,17,1*&2,1&± ±:$6+,1*721'& QUESTION PRESENTED The 1952 Patent Act requires patents to “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it.” 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The “written description” must be “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” Ibid. “The object of the statute is to require the patentee to describe his invention so that others may construct and use it after the expiration of the patent.” Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Tr. Co., 305 U.S. 47, 57 (1938). The Federal Circuit has construed §112(a) as impos- ing separate “written description” and “enablement” re- quirements subject to different standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Awareness and Action Around the Country's
    THANKS DRIVING TO AWARENESS ALL OUR DONORS AND ACTION AROUND THE COUNTRY’S OPIOID CRISIS $500,000 and over Leon D. Black Sonenshine Partners Human Services (Birmingham, MI) Google Bostock Family Foundation Sovereign Health of California Ibra Morales Conrad N. Hilton Foundation The Boucher Charitable Foundation Partnership for a Drug-Free Wash- National Association of Broadcast- Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Inc. ington (Lacey, WA) ers $250,000-$499,999 Timothy J. Brosnan Staten Island Partnership for Com- Gordon Ogden Consumer Healthcare Products Craig D. Brown munity Wellness (Staten Island, NY) Pascack Valley High School Association The Bruni Foundation Televisa, S.A. de C.V. George Patterson CVS Health Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP Truth Initiative PepsiCo, Inc. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Corning Incorporated Foundation Turn 2 Foundation Donald K. Peterson Major League Baseball The Council on Alcohol & Drug Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. Thomas Reuters Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Abuse (Dallas, TX) Venable LLP Tamara Robinson Pharmaceutical Research & The Marvin H. Davidson Foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Marc Rosenbaum Manufacturers of America Inc. The Xerox Foundation Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D. Purdue Pharma L.P. Deloitte Services LLP Rye City School District Discovery Communications $1,000-$4,999 Andrew Scott $100,000-$249,999 DrugFreeAZKids.org (Phoenix, AZ) All Filters, LLC Jeff Shiver James E. & Diane W. Burke Fox Broadcasting Company Bill Anderson Roberto Simon Foundation Joan Ganz Cooney AOL, Inc. Simulmedia, Inc. Millenium Health, LLC General Electric Company Auburn Pharmaceutical Yvette A. Smith Pfizer Inc. The Gottesman Fund The Ayco Company, LP Karen Spence Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz The Governor’s Prevention Partner- Bob Bailey Allan Spivack ship (Wethersfield, CT) Bernstein Investment Research & State of Maine Department of $25,000-$99,999 Hawaii Meth Project Management Health and Human Services Alkermes HBO C.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Compliance Officers.Xlsx
    Compliance Officers.xlsx Organization Representative Title Email Phone AbbVie Inc. Karen Hale Vice President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer [email protected] 847-932-7850 Amgen Inc. Cynthia Patton Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer [email protected] 805-447-6217 Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ryan T. Sullivan Senior Vice President and General Counsel [email protected] 650-543-7500 Astellas Pharma US, LLC Nahrin Marino Vice President, Head of Ethics & Compliance [email protected] 224-205-5618 Americas AstraZeneca LP Trudy Tan Vice President Compliance, North America [email protected] 302-885-5692 Bayer Corporation Lawrence Platkin Vice President and Compliance Officer [email protected] 973-305-5439 Biogen Soph Sophocles Chief Compliance Officer [email protected] 781-464-1943 Boehringer Ingelheim Joshua Marks Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer [email protected] Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Adam Dubow Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer [email protected] 609-252-3034 Celgene Corporation Maria E. Pasquale EVP and Chief Compliance Officer [email protected] 908-673-9757 Cell Therapeutics, Inc. Steven E. Benner, M.D. Executive Vice President & Chief Medical Officer [email protected] 206-272-4652 Corcept Therapeutics Inc. G. Charles Robb Chief Financial Officer / Compliance Officer [email protected] 650-688-8783 Cumberland Pharmaceuticals James Herman Corporate Compliance Officer [email protected] 615-255-0068 Inc. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Matt Allegrucci Vice President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer [email protected] 908-992-6674 Eisai Inc. Vincent P. Andrews Vice President, General Counsel and Chief [email protected] 201-746-2938 Compliance Officer Senior Vice President ERM and Chief Compliance Melissa Stapleton Eli Lilly and Company Officer [email protected] 317-276-2923 Barnes EMD Serono, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Rxoutlook® 4Th Quarter 2020
    ® RxOutlook 4th Quarter 2020 optum.com/optumrx a RxOutlook 4th Quarter 2020 While COVID-19 vaccines draw most attention, multiple “firsts” are expected from the pipeline in 1Q:2021 Great attention is being given to pipeline drugs that are being rapidly developed for the treatment or prevention of SARS- CoV-19 (COVID-19) infection, particularly two vaccines that are likely to receive emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the near future. Earlier this year, FDA issued a Guidance for Industry that indicated the FDA expected any vaccine for COVID-19 to have at least 50% efficacy in preventing COVID-19. In November, two manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, released top-line results from interim analyses of their investigational COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer stated their vaccine, BNT162b2 had demonstrated > 90% efficacy. Several days later, Moderna stated their vaccine, mRNA-1273, had demonstrated 94% efficacy. Many unknowns still exist, such as the durability of response, vaccine performance in vulnerable sub-populations, safety, and tolerability in the short and long term. Considering the first U.S. case of COVID-19 was detected less than 12 months ago, the fact that two vaccines have far exceeded the FDA’s guidance and are poised to earn EUA clearance, is remarkable. If the final data indicates a positive risk vs. benefit profile and supports final FDA clearance, there may be lessons from this accelerated development timeline that could be applied to the larger drug development pipeline in the future. Meanwhile, drug development in other areas continues. In this edition of RxOutlook, we highlight 12 key pipeline drugs with potential to launch by the end of the first quarter of 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • PROXY MEMORANDUM To: Shareholders of Pfizer Re: Shareholder Resolution on Political Lobbying Disclosure Date: March 18, 2020 Co
    PROXY MEMORANDUM To: Shareholders of Pfizer Re: Shareholder resolution on political lobbying disclosure Date: March 18, 2020 Contact: Nicholas J. Lusiani, [email protected] Diana Kearney, [email protected] Oxfam America, Inc. and co-filers Boston Trust Walden, FSPA and SHARE urge you to vote FOR Item 6 at the Annual Meeting of Pfizer (PFE) on April 23, 2020. I. SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Pfizer request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing: 1. Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications; 2. Payments by Pfizer used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient; 3. Pfizer’s membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation; and 4. Description of management’s and the Board’s decision-making process and oversight for making payments described in sections 2 and 3 above. The report shall be presented to the Corporate Governance Committee and posted on Pfizer’s website. OXFAM AMERICA 1101 17TH STREET, NW SUITE 1300 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 USA TEL +1 (202) 496 1180 | FAX +1 (202) 496 1190 | www.oxfamamerica.org Supporting Statement Pfizer regularly ranks as a top lobbying spender among drug makers in Washington, in state capitols and internationally. Pfizer spent $97,570,650 from 2010 through 2018 on federal lobbying,1 and was the single largest corporate spender among pharmaceutical peers in 2018,2 and in 2019.3 This figure does not include state lobbying, where Pfizer lobbies extensively but disclosure is uneven or absent.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    Case 1:19-cv-00552-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL PRODUCTS ) IP LIMITED, MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL ) PRODUCTS INC., and NEW PHARMATOP ) L.P., ) ) C.A. No. ____________ Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ALTAN PHARMA LTD., ) ) Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Limited, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc., and New Pharmatop L.P. (“Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, file this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Altan Pharma Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Altan”) and allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Limited (“Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP”) is a company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, having a registered address of College Business & Technology Park, Cruiserath Road, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, D15 TX2V, Ireland. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt plc. As set forth herein, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,399,012 (the “’012 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,610,265 (the “’265 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,987,238 (the “’238 patent”), and is the exclusive sub-licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,992,218 (the “’218 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Case 1:19-cv-00552-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 2 2. Plaintiff Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. (“Mallinckrodt Hospital Products”), formerly Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Cadence”), is a company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 675 McDonnell Blvd., Hazelwood, Missouri 63042.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Serum Fentanyl Levels After Using Reference and Generic Transdermal Fentanyl Patches with and Without Standardi
    The Effect of Heat on Fentanyl Release from Fentanyl Patches in Healthy Adults Version 8.0 12 June 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ DETERMINATION OF SERUM FENTANYL LEVELS AFTER USING REFERENCE AND GENERIC TRANSDERMAL FENTANYL PATCHES WITH AND WITHOUT STANDARDIZED HEAT APPLICATION IN HEALTHY HUMAN VOLUNTEERS Short title: The Effect of Heat on Fentanyl Release from Fentanyl Patches in Healthy Adults Clinical Protocol Principal Investigator: Wilbur H. Chen, MD, MS U01 Principal Investigator(s): Audra L. Stinchcomb (contact), PhD Hazem E. Hassan, PhD Sponsor: Food and Drug Administration Grant Number: 1U01FD004955-01 Version 8.0 12 June 2017 I The Effect of Heat on Fentanyl Release from Fentanyl Patches in Healthy Adults Version 8.0 12 June 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE This study will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice E6 (ICH-GCP) and the applicable Food and Drug Administration and other Department of Health and Human Services regulatory requirements. All key personnel (all individuals responsible for the design and conduct of this study) have completed Human Subjects Protection Training. II The Effect of Heat on Fentanyl Release from Fentanyl Patches in Healthy Adults Version 8.0 12 June 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROTOCOL SUMMARY Title:
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Chairman Joseph J. Simons, Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, and Commissioner Christine S
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20580 Statement of Chairman Joseph J. Simons, Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson Concerning the Proposed Acquisition of Allergan plc by AbbVie Inc. May 5, 2020 AbbVie Inc. (“AbbVie”), the seventh largest pharmaceutical company in the world by revenue, proposes to acquire Allergan plc (“Allergan”), the twentieth largest.1 The parties’ portfolios are largely complementary, as AbbVie primarily develops and markets products in the immunology, oncology, and virology areas, while Allergan is focused on aesthetics and eye care. This transaction poses competitive concerns in three relevant markets: (1) drugs for the treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (“EPI”); (2) Interleukin-23 (“IL-23”) inhibitors for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease; and (3) IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. In these areas, the parties are two of a limited number of firms with products on the market or in development. The Commission has voted 3-2 to issue a complaint and accept a settlement resolving every substantial threat to competition uncovered by FTC staff and supported by the evidence, after a thorough investigation lasting ten months and involving more than forty interviews and the review of more than 430,000 documents. The proposed order remedies the competitive concerns by requiring the merging parties to divest Allergan’s EPI drugs Zenpep and Viokace to Nestlé, S.A. (“Nestlé”) and to transfer Allergan’s assets related to the IL-23 inhibitor brazikumab back to AstraZeneca plc (“AstraZeneca”), the drug’s original developer, by terminating the AstraZeneca license to Allergan.
    [Show full text]
  • 20200921162657229 Idenix V. Gilead
    No. 20-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC AND UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI CAGLIARI, Petitioners, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Anthony M. Insogna Shay Dvoretzky JONES DAY Counsel of Record 4655 Executive Dr. Gregory A. Castanias Suite 1500 Jennifer L. Swize San Diego, CA 92121 Jeffrey R. Johnson Amanda K. Rice JONES DAY JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave. NW 150 W. Jefferson Ave. Washington, DC 20001 Suite 2100 (202) 879-3939 Detroit, MI 48226 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Patent Act provides that patents must “contain a written description of the invention” in “such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The law has long recognized that patents including “genus” claims—i.e., claims that identify a class of substances—can satisfy § 112(a). In the field of pharmaceuticals, inventing a genus of compounds is often the key to lifesaving medical innovation, and spelling out each potential embodiment—that is, every chemical variant with the same property—can be practically impossible. This petition presents two related questions: 1. Whether, as the Federal Circuit has held, a genus claim is not enabled “as a matter of law” if it encompasses a large number of compounds—or whether, as this Court has recognized, enablement is a context-specific jury question; and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Vaccination-Related Lymphadenopathy: What to Be Aware Of
    “In Press” papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in Radiology: Imaging Cancer. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review before it is published in it final version. Please note that during production of the final copyedited article, errors may be discovered which could affect the content. COVID-19 Vaccination-Related Lymphadenopathy: What To Be Aware Of Wendy Tu, MD1, David S. Gierada, MD2, Bonnie N. Joe, MD, PhD3 1 - Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2 - Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO. 3 - Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, San Francisco, CA. Corresponding author: Wendy Tu, [email protected] Funding: None Manuscript Type: Editorial Disclosures: Dr. Joe is a deputy editor of Radiology: Imaging Cancer, Dr. Gierada is an associate editor of Radiology: Imaging Cancer, Dr. Tu is a trainee editorial board member of Radiology: Imaging Cancer. Essentials With the rollout of mass COVID-19 vaccination across the world, vaccine-induced lymphadenopathy is an important side effect for clinicians, patients, and cancer researchers to be aware of. Vaccine-induced lymphadenopathy can present as a diagnostic dilemma for radiologists. Evolving imaging guidelines are needed to address management strategies of vaccine- induced lymphadenopathy in both the general population and high-risk oncology patients. Documentation of vaccination status is critical to decrease unnecessary biopsies and alleviate patient anxiety. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the landscape of society since February of 2020 with a significant and tragic impact on morbidity and mortality with 2.77 million deaths across the world and 548,087 deaths in the United States as of March 26, 2021.
    [Show full text]